alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 542 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that United States 

foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority should be suspended until Palestinian Authority Government Resolutions relating to providing a monthly 

salary to anyone imprisoned in Israel’s prisons as a result of participation 

in the struggle against the Israeli occupation are repealed. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2014 

Mr. YOHO (for himself, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. PERRY, Mr. WEBER of Texas, 

Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, 

and Mr. FRANKS of Arizona) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

United States foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority 

should be suspended until Palestinian Authority Government Resolutions relating to providing a monthly salary 

to anyone imprisoned in Israel’s prisons as a result of 

participation in the struggle against the Israeli occupation are repealed. 

Whereas since fiscal year 2008, the annual regular-year 

United States bilateral assistance to the West Bank and 

Gaza Strip has averaged approximately $500 million, including annual averages of approximately $200 million in 

direct budgetary assistance and $100 million in non-leVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:17 Apr 04, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR542.IH HR542

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 542 IH 

thal security assistance for the Palestinian Authority in 

the West Bank; 

Whereas the Government Accountability Office has found 

some glaring insufficiencies in the vetting process of the 

foreign aid grants to the Palestinian Authority and as 

such it is very easy for United States foreign aid dollars 

to be used to provide a monthly stipend for accused terrorists; 

Whereas Palestinian Authority Government Resolutions 21 

and 23 (2010) codified into law a longstanding Palestinian Authority practice of providing a monthly salary to 

‘‘anyone imprisoned in the occupation’s [Israel’s] prisons 

as a result of his participation in the struggle against the 

occupation.’’; and 

Whereas, according to the Palestinian Authority’s definition, 

more than 4,500 Palestinian prisoners as of December 

2012 are serving time for terror-related offenses and are 

recipients of salaries allocated from the Palestinian 

Authority’s general salary budget that range from 2,400 

to 12,000 shekels ($680 to $3,400) a month: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that United States foreign aid to the Pales3 tinian Authority should be suspended until Palestinian 

4 Authority Government Resolutions 21 and 23 (2010) are 

5 repealed. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA SANTOS CRUZ-BARAJAS and

YOSIMAR BARAJAS-CRUZ,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71608

Agency Nos. A099-577-340

A099-577-339

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Maria Santos Cruz-Barajas and Yosimar Barajas-Cruz, mother

and son and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s

FILED

OCT 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

(“IJ”) denial of their application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the

petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that,

even though all witnesses testified credibly, petitioners failed to show exceptional

and extremely unusual hardship to the United States citizen child. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009).

Petitioners’ contentions that the Board failed to properly consider and weigh

all evidence of hardship do not raise a colorable due process claim. 

Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).

We decline to address petitioners’ unexhausted contention that they were

denied due process and a fair trial because the IJ was not neutral. Ontiveros-Lopez

v. INS, 123 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider a claim that

Board did not have first opportunity to consider).

We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of petitioners’ motion to

reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to the United States citizen

child. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining

that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction when question presented in motion to

reopen is essentially the same hardship ground originally decided).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

## By Location

              - california(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - utah(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(70)
              - 2023(30)
              - 2022(73)
              - 2021(22)
              - (-)2020(4)
              - 2019(11)
              - 2018(2)

partnerPima County Regional Flood Control District

partnerWashington County Flood Control Authority (WCFCA)

partnerAlbuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority

partnerSan Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SLOFC&WCD)
A99A1579.

#### MOBLEY v. BENT TREE COMMUNITY, INC.

(523 SE2d 69)

Miller, Judge.

After John Mobley bought land in the Bent Tree Community, the community’s board filed an amendment to its restrictive covenants to require a minimum of 1,250 square feet for newly built homes. Before the court clerk recorded the amendment, Mobley submitted an application to the community’s architectural committee to build a 900-square-foot home. Several days after the amendment was recorded, the committee disapproved Mobley’s application for failure to comply with the 1,250-square-foot minimum. He appealed to the Bent Tree board, arguing that his submitting the application before the court clerk had recorded the amendment precluded the committee from applying the new square footage requirement to his application. The board agreed with the committee and rejected Mobley’s appeal. He filed a breach of contract action with the superior court. The court granted summary judgment for Bent Tree. Holding that the amendment’s status on the committee’s decision date, not on the application submission date, controls, we affirm.

Citing OCGA § 44-2-2 (b) (filing date controls as to deeds, mortgages, and liens), the trial court ruled that the amendment was effective as of the date it was filed. But under the Georgia Property Owners’ Association Act,1 any amendment to a declaration of restrictions becomes effective only when recorded.2 Therefore, November 4 controls as the effective date of the amendment.

Though Mobley submitted his application before November 4, *221the architectural committee could apply a restrictive covenant criterion that was in effect on the date of its decision (November 13). The amendment plainly states that the 1,250-square-foot requirement applies to all applications except those for “dwellings *approved for construction*by the [architectural committee] or constructed prior to the date of recording of this Agreement. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Since the committee did not approve Mobley’s application before the recording date of November 4, the amendment authorized the committee to deny his application under the new criterion.3

Decided October 1, 1999.

*McGee & Oxford, James B. Crew, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, Derek W. Johanson,*for appellee.

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Bent Tree.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Blackburn, P. J, and Barnes, J., concur.*

1

 OCGA § 44-3-220 et seq.

2

 OCGA § 44-3-226 (d).

3

 Compare *Dawson v. Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth.,*236 Ga. App. 96 (2) (511 SE2d 199) (1999); *Thomas v. Firestone Tire &c. Co.,*139 Ga. App. 40, 41-42 (2) (227 SE2d 870) (1976).
Travis LOWE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2877

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 16, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(18)
              - products_maps(12)
              - products_publications(68)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(17)
              - multimedia_image-141771(17)
              - (-)multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - news_news-149245(3)
              - news_news-149248(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(5)
              - alaska(9)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(36)
              - arkansas(2)
              - california(60)
              - colorado(4)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(2)
              - connecticut(4)
              - delaware(9)
              - district of columbia(7)
              - florida(15)
              - georgia(3)
              - guam(2)
              - hawaii(14)
              - idaho(2)
              - (-)indiana(2)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(11)
              - maine(7)
              - maryland(15)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(9)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(1)
              - nevada(16)
              - new hampshire(3)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new york(3)
              - north carolina(5)
              - ohio(2)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(5)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(7)
              - rhode island(3)
              - south carolina(5)
              - south dakota(10)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(17)
              - u.s. virgin islands(3)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(3)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(14)
              - west virginia(3)
              - wisconsin(10)
              - wyoming(5)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        August 31, 2012        The Greatest Natural Disaster in Ohio History: The Flood of 1913

Featured Films and Shorts        December 31, 2016        Historic USGS Streamgage on the Wabash River at Lafayette Indiana
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTATE OF DANIEL HERNANDEZ, by 

and through successors in interest, Manuel 

Hernandez, Maria Hernandez and M.L.H.; 

MANUEL HERNANDEZ, individually; 

MARIA HERNANDEZ, individually, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 

M.L.H., a minor, by and through her 

guardian ad litem Claudia Sugey Chavez, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES 

POLICE DEPARTMENT; TONI 

MCBRIDE, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-55994 

D.C. Nos. 2:20-cv-04477-SB-KS 

 2:20-cv-05154-DMG-KS 

ORDER

M.L.H., a minor, by and through her 

guardian ad litem Claudia Sugey Chavez, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

and 

ESTATE OF DANIEL HERNANDEZ, by 

and through successors in interest, Manuel 

Hernandez, Maria Hernandez and M.L.H.; 

MANUEL HERNANDEZ, individually; 

MARIA HERNANDEZ, individually, 

Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

No. 21-55995 

D.C. Nos. 2:20-cv-04477-SB-KS 

 2:20-cv-05154-DMG-KS 

FILED

JUL 8 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES 

POLICE DEPARTMENT; TONI 

MCBRIDE, 

Defendants-Appellees.

MURGUIA, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that 

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) 

and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion is vacated. 

Judge Ikuta did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
Exhibit 21.1

The Princeton Review, Inc.

List of Subsidiaries



|                                           |  |                 
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------
|Name                                       |  | Jurisdiction    
|                                           | 
|Princeton Review Operations, L.L.C.        |  | Delaware        
|                                           | 
|The Princeton Review Canada Inc            |  | Ontario (Canada)
|                                           | 
|Test Services, Inc                         |  | Colorado        
|                                           | 
|The Princeton Review of Orange County, LLC |  | Delaware        
|                                           | 
|Penn Foster Education Group, Inc           |  | Delaware        
|                                           | 
|Penn Foster, Inc                           |  | Pennsylvania    
|                                           | 
|ICS Holdings Ltd                           |  | Quebec (Canada) 
|                                           | 
|ICS Canada Operations Ltd                  |  | Quebec (Canada)
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00270-CR

WILLIAM E. TRESSLER APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1401199D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant William E. Tressler entered a plea of true to the petition to 

proceed to adjudication on a third degree felony of “assault family/household 

member with previous conviction” in exchange for a sentence of two years’ 

incarceration. Appellant also signed a judicial confession, waived all pretrial 

motions, and waived all rights of appeal. 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

On September 10, 2015, we informed Appellant that because he had 

waived his right of appeal, his case was subject to dismissal unless he or any 

party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Appellant has filed responses, 

but they do not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss 

this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Adams v. State, No. 02-11-00151-CR, 

2012 WL 858609, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 15, 2012, no pet.) (mem. 

op., not designated for publication).

/s/ Lee Gabriel

LEE GABRIEL

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 15, 2015
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(1)
              - colorado(1)
              - georgia(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - montana(1)
              - new jersey(1)
              - (-)new mexico(1)
              - new york(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - texas(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(2)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

              - (-)2023(1)
              - 2020(1)

staff profileAnne C. Tillery
Felicia M. RHOADES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1610

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 4, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Thomas J. Lukashow, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
September 30, 2000 Financial Statements included in the Company's Form 10-Q and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          53,233
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  101,622
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    137,942
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               315,561
<PP&E>                                       1,495,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,767,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          313,800
<BONDS>                                        655,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     778,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,767,789
<SALES>                                        793,024
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               793,241
<CGS>                                          492,087
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  541,644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,063)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                203,150
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            203,150
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   203,150
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
STATE of Louisiana v. Ronald Earl WILLIAMS

No. 2017-KP-2022

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 14, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Granted in part. The court of appeal's ruling is vacated to the extent that it remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The matter is remanded to the district court, where the state will be afforded an opportunity to respond on the merits.

Thereafter, the district court shall determine whether to rule on the application summarily, under La.C.Cr.P. art. 929, or whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted under La.C.Cr.P. art. 930. The writ is otherwise denied.

CRICHTON, J., recused.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 569 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 569

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 7, 2014.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4438) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to simplify and make permanent the research credit. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the 
bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered 
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David F. Hofstatter, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CallWave Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The
registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any
change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants
other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors:

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 12,
2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ David F. Hofstatter
|David F. Hofstatter    
|Chief Executive Officer